Supreme Court Ruling on Lawsuits Is a Defeat for Government Officials

The U.S. Supreme Court last week made it more difficult for
government officials to have civil rights lawsuits against them
dismissed before trial.

The 5-4 ruling in the case of a prison inmate from the District of
Columbia was a victory for civil rights plaintiffs and a defeat for
public officials, including school board members and
administrators.

The high court rejected a procedural rule adopted by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia under which a plaintiff
alleging that a government official had an unconstitutional motive in
denying the person's civil rights would have to provide "clear and
convincing evidence" of the motive to allow the suit to proceed to
trial.

School officials face an increasing number of suits based on the
federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, the Reconstruction-era statute that
allows citizens to sue officials if they believe their rights have been
violated "under color" of government authority. The statute is best
known today as Section 1983, for its place in the U.S. legal code.

But officials can seek dismissal of such suits before trial by
invoking so-called qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has ruled that
officials who carry out their duties in good faith and in observance of
clearly established constitutional and statutory rights are immune from
suit.

At issue in Crawford-El v. Britton (Case No. 96-827)
was the "clear and convincing evidence" rule adopted by the federal
appeals court here.

By requiring plaintiffs to provide strong evidence, even before
pretrial discovery, that an official had an unconstitutional motive in
violating someone's civil rights, the appeals court made it much easier
for public officials to have lawsuits thrown out based on qualified
immunity.

Retaliation Alleged

The appeal before the high court involved Leonard Rollon
Crawford-El, a Washington inmate who alleged that a prison official
retaliated against him for giving newspaper interviews about prison
conditions. The official allegedly delayed the shipment of Mr.
Crawford-El's personal belongings when he was transferred to a prison
in Florida.

The Clinton administration, as well as the attorneys general of 34
states, supported the procedural rule adopted by the appeals court. The
supporters argued it would help dispose of what they see as frivolous
suits such as Mr. Crawford-El's.

If the Supreme Court had approved the rule, other federal appeals
courts would have likely adopted similar ones, thus making it easier
for civil rights suits across the country to be thrown out before
trial.

But the high court majority said it was up to Congress, not the
judicial branch, to adopt such a rule.

The appellate court's rule "lacks any common law pedigree" and
"undermines the very purpose of Section 1983--to provide a remedy for
the violation of federal rights," said Justice John Paul Stevens, who
was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H.
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.